6 ms·

SOPA sponsors break their own laws

261 points by kapitalx 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago
I hope some American (preferably in the relevant geographical area for those politicians) is writing short polite letters explaining what those politicians have done, and explaining the consequences under SOPA. I know that I'm hopelessly naïve for thinking that constituents writing letters to politicians achieves anything. Maybe some satirist should do a sketch on tv?
- beagle3 15y ago
  I'm not a satirist, and this is not TV, but: congressman: Good day, sheeple. With prompting by the content industry, we are considering beheading everyone, because it has been shown that everyone sometimes plays back a tune in their head without paying royalties. We've tried to get you to admit and pay every time you do that, but that didn't work, and we have to do something -- it seems only beheading would solve the problem. (people frantically writing letters) congressman: Seems, from everyone's responses, we've gone too far. We've asked our content industry overlords, and they will apparently be ok if we only cut everyone's ears to start with, so that no infringing content can get into people's heads. But if that doesn't work well for music, we're not just going to take your eyes out to avoid infringing on videos -- we'll have to do the full beheading thing then. (people sighing with relief) Well, that's a reasonable measure. -- At least, that's my impression of the effectiveness of writing these letters. Congress just keeps introducing horrible bills, and the people have to win every time (which they hardly ever do), because every one of these bills includes the cumulative effect of the previously failed-to-pass bills. EDIT: prompted->prompting, out->eyes
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Uh, rebuking "Fair Use" as a loop hole is damaging, to the criticism of SOPA, is it not? Specifically the notion that SOPA is unaware of the difference between Fair Use and infringement?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nl 15y ago
Ars debunked this a couple of days ago: But we're also a news site, so we contacted James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law School, (and judging from his tweets, not a SOPA supporter) to get his expert opinion. He was skeptical. The new anti-streaming provisions would apply only to willful infringement. "A good-faith belief that one's actions are legal is sufficient to defeat a finding of willfulness," he told Ars. SOPA even codifies this principle by excluding from liability those who have "a good faith reasonable basis" to believe their conduct is not infringing. "Even if the Representatives are infringing (and I think they have a good fair use defense, and may well have licenses we don't know about), they're unlikely to be willful infringers," he told Ars. He also pointed out Smith and his colleagues would only be liable if the value of the streaming performances exceeds $1,000, and it's not clear how valuable a few short clips of local news broadcasts are. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/on-wednesday-reddit-which-like.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/on-wednesday...
- ewoodrich 15y ago
  I've heard this response, but I'm not convinced that this explanation really changes the issue substantially, or exonerates the Congressmen in question. As it stands, willful infringement must be proven to land any meaningful award in a copyright case. (A recent example http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thoma...) So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date.
  - nl 15y ago
    So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date. I agree with this, but the factual inaccuracy is important. Given that these sites are run by the bill sponsors it would be pretty easy to show they are not willful infringes. Worse, by publishing this story it makes SOPA easier to defend - the authors can get up and say "look - SOPA won't wreck the internet. I made a mistake and did the wrong thing, and the law explicitly took that into account"
teja1990 15y ago
The same thing happened in Germany ,the legislator who spear headed the Piracy Act's website itself had copyrighted images... I wish these people know what they are doing.
Tycho 15y ago
The thing is, I'm so jaded by the piracy supporters' rhetoric at this point, mainly their failure to admit that hundred of millions of people use filesharing/streaming technology to blatantly rip off content-producers, that I haven't even looked into what this latest bill is. They've cried wolf too many times.
- beagle3 15y ago
  If the principles behind SOPA were applied to other things, - police would close gardening shops if someone says they saw a client bought anything that was later used to grow pot - pharmacies would be shut down by the police for selling syringes if someone says one of these was used for drugs - gun producers would be shut down for selling guns if one of them was said to have been used to commit a crime. And if you think "well, in theory, but of course it isn't going to be used like that" - well, it definitely IS going to be used like that. DMCA is being used like that (and part of the reasons SOPA is being introduced is because DMCA has some fairness provisions that make it harder to abuse , even though it is very easy to use ). Also, PATRIOT act was for terrorists, and wouldn't be used for anything else, right? That's why 99% of the times it was used have nothing to do with terrorism. SOPA is designed to be abused the way those people cry about. Make no mistake. And you'll suffer its consequences like the rest of wolf criers, even if you wouldn't know it.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Yeah, you're completely right. But I don't understand why so many are against his comments. He's making a good point that there are a lot of people defending torrent and file sharing sites like they're bastions of freedom and the good guys. The reality is that theyre known to be used for sharing copyrighted files illegally. Some even advertise it. There's really not much of a defense for them, we all know what they do. Hell, even I use them at times which I know is wrong (I'm sorry, I'm only human). The GP's intent wasn't to support SOPA. Read his comments again, please, as he makes a good point. These sites are fighting SOPA because they know they'll be easily shut down if it passes and they know they're providing copyrighted content. The difference between people like us here on HN and those that run the sites in question is that our aim would most likely be to disrupt content delivery legitimately through a startup and they're just trying to keep getting that CPC ad revenue. Our reasons for being against SOPA are very different and he sees no defense for the sites in question.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Oh god... Reaching. Grasping for straws. They probably ar clueless but this story is still a sorry excuse for a top story on HN. Did anyone except the OP even read it before upvoting?
rick888 15y ago
I don't agree with this law, but there seems to be this underlying sentiment on HN and other communities that copyright holders don't have rights and that there should be a free-for-all with their content.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  No, the underlying sentiment is that copyright holders (especially the big conglomerates) have gone significantly too far with the rights granted to them by the people.
  - rick888 15y ago
    If I release a proprietary software app and users start sharing copies of it for free online, I should have some legal recourse. I'm really tired of hearing the same old arguments about how somehow this is helping me as a business by giving me "free advertising" and that "it doesn't actually affect sales negatively". It's not and it does. My own stats over the course of 10 years shows me that this is true. Big companies like Microsoft and Adobe can handle it because they have billion dollar budgets. I can't. The problem isn't necessarily that one copy that's taken. It's the fact that when piracy isn't stopped, people start to first think that it's okay to get your stuff for free..and then they start to expect it, potentially putting you out of business. Open source falls into a similar category. Except, it's your future job that's getting cheapened. Why would someone hire a software engineer to build an app when they can take a free one and hire much cheaper software mechanics? I've seen it happen already. In 10 years when the current generation (which is used to getting software free and is even more tech savvy than the previous generation) starts taking over current businesses, tech job salaries will be on the decline. I predict a developer union at some point. I'm not going to take this and just let my business get ruined. I've converted all of my software products to services. Customers essentially are paying per-month for something they would have gotten for a flat-fee. I don't mind, because it means I can more easily determine my profits for the year and I will make more money in the long-run.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
thenextcorner 15y ago
Classic!

261 points by kapitalx 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

I hope some American (preferably in the relevant geographical area for those politicians) is writing short polite letters explaining what those politicians have done, and explaining the consequences under SOPA. I know that I'm hopelessly naïve for thinking that constituents writing letters to politicians achieves anything. Maybe some satirist should do a sketch on tv?

beagle3 15y ago
I'm not a satirist, and this is not TV, but: congressman: Good day, sheeple. With prompting by the content industry, we are considering beheading everyone, because it has been shown that everyone sometimes plays back a tune in their head without paying royalties. We've tried to get you to admit and pay every time you do that, but that didn't work, and we have to do something -- it seems only beheading would solve the problem. (people frantically writing letters) congressman: Seems, from everyone's responses, we've gone too far. We've asked our content industry overlords, and they will apparently be ok if we only cut everyone's ears to start with, so that no infringing content can get into people's heads. But if that doesn't work well for music, we're not just going to take your eyes out to avoid infringing on videos -- we'll have to do the full beheading thing then. (people sighing with relief) Well, that's a reasonable measure. -- At least, that's my impression of the effectiveness of writing these letters. Congress just keeps introducing horrible bills, and the people have to win every time (which they hardly ever do), because every one of these bills includes the cumulative effect of the previously failed-to-pass bills. EDIT: prompted->prompting, out->eyes

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Uh, rebuking "Fair Use" as a loop hole is damaging, to the criticism of SOPA, is it not? Specifically the notion that SOPA is unaware of the difference between Fair Use and infringement?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nl 15y ago

Ars debunked this a couple of days ago: But we're also a news site, so we contacted James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law School, (and judging from his tweets, not a SOPA supporter) to get his expert opinion. He was skeptical. The new anti-streaming provisions would apply only to willful infringement. "A good-faith belief that one's actions are legal is sufficient to defeat a finding of willfulness," he told Ars. SOPA even codifies this principle by excluding from liability those who have "a good faith reasonable basis" to believe their conduct is not infringing. "Even if the Representatives are infringing (and I think they have a good fair use defense, and may well have licenses we don't know about), they're unlikely to be willful infringers," he told Ars. He also pointed out Smith and his colleagues would only be liable if the value of the streaming performances exceeds $1,000, and it's not clear how valuable a few short clips of local news broadcasts are. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/on-wednesday-reddit-which-like.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/on-wednesday...

ewoodrich 15y ago
I've heard this response, but I'm not convinced that this explanation really changes the issue substantially, or exonerates the Congressmen in question. As it stands, willful infringement must be proven to land any meaningful award in a copyright case. (A recent example http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thoma...) So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date.
- nl 15y ago
  So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date. I agree with this, but the factual inaccuracy is important. Given that these sites are run by the bill sponsors it would be pretty easy to show they are not willful infringes. Worse, by publishing this story it makes SOPA easier to defend - the authors can get up and say "look - SOPA won't wreck the internet. I made a mistake and did the wrong thing, and the law explicitly took that into account"

teja1990 15y ago

The same thing happened in Germany ,the legislator who spear headed the Piracy Act's website itself had copyrighted images... I wish these people know what they are doing.

Tycho 15y ago

The thing is, I'm so jaded by the piracy supporters' rhetoric at this point, mainly their failure to admit that hundred of millions of people use filesharing/streaming technology to blatantly rip off content-producers, that I haven't even looked into what this latest bill is. They've cried wolf too many times.

beagle3 15y ago
If the principles behind SOPA were applied to other things, - police would close gardening shops if someone says they saw a client bought anything that was later used to grow pot - pharmacies would be shut down by the police for selling syringes if someone says one of these was used for drugs - gun producers would be shut down for selling guns if one of them was said to have been used to commit a crime. And if you think "well, in theory, but of course it isn't going to be used like that" - well, it definitely IS going to be used like that. DMCA is being used like that (and part of the reasons SOPA is being introduced is because DMCA has some fairness provisions that make it harder to abuse , even though it is very easy to use ). Also, PATRIOT act was for terrorists, and wouldn't be used for anything else, right? That's why 99% of the times it was used have nothing to do with terrorism. SOPA is designed to be abused the way those people cry about. Make no mistake. And you'll suffer its consequences like the rest of wolf criers, even if you wouldn't know it.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yeah, you're completely right. But I don't understand why so many are against his comments. He's making a good point that there are a lot of people defending torrent and file sharing sites like they're bastions of freedom and the good guys. The reality is that theyre known to be used for sharing copyrighted files illegally. Some even advertise it. There's really not much of a defense for them, we all know what they do. Hell, even I use them at times which I know is wrong (I'm sorry, I'm only human). The GP's intent wasn't to support SOPA. Read his comments again, please, as he makes a good point. These sites are fighting SOPA because they know they'll be easily shut down if it passes and they know they're providing copyrighted content. The difference between people like us here on HN and those that run the sites in question is that our aim would most likely be to disrupt content delivery legitimately through a startup and they're just trying to keep getting that CPC ad revenue. Our reasons for being against SOPA are very different and he sees no defense for the sites in question.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Oh god... Reaching. Grasping for straws. They probably ar clueless but this story is still a sorry excuse for a top story on HN. Did anyone except the OP even read it before upvoting?

rick888 15y ago

I don't agree with this law, but there seems to be this underlying sentiment on HN and other communities that copyright holders don't have rights and that there should be a free-for-all with their content.

nitrogen 15y ago
No, the underlying sentiment is that copyright holders (especially the big conglomerates) have gone significantly too far with the rights granted to them by the people.
- rick888 15y ago
  If I release a proprietary software app and users start sharing copies of it for free online, I should have some legal recourse. I'm really tired of hearing the same old arguments about how somehow this is helping me as a business by giving me "free advertising" and that "it doesn't actually affect sales negatively". It's not and it does. My own stats over the course of 10 years shows me that this is true. Big companies like Microsoft and Adobe can handle it because they have billion dollar budgets. I can't. The problem isn't necessarily that one copy that's taken. It's the fact that when piracy isn't stopped, people start to first think that it's okay to get your stuff for free..and then they start to expect it, potentially putting you out of business. Open source falls into a similar category. Except, it's your future job that's getting cheapened. Why would someone hire a software engineer to build an app when they can take a free one and hire much cheaper software mechanics? I've seen it happen already. In 10 years when the current generation (which is used to getting software free and is even more tech savvy than the previous generation) starts taking over current businesses, tech job salaries will be on the decline. I predict a developer union at some point. I'm not going to take this and just let my business get ruined. I've converted all of my software products to services. Customers essentially are paying per-month for something they would have gotten for a flat-fee. I don't mind, because it means I can more easily determine my profits for the year and I will make more money in the long-run.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago

thenextcorner 15y ago

Classic!